PDA

View Full Version : Bullets look like starwars laser blasts



lwiklendt
02-17-2005, 08:56 PM
If you've ever seen ww2 combat footage from a fighter, you'll notice that the bullets are a bit innacurate and they don't fly in strait lines. They fly in thin spirals. I think it would add a killing touch of realism to the otherwise very realistic game. Currently the bullets look like perfect laser blasts from a starwars movie.

VW-IceFire
02-17-2005, 09:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lwiklendt:
If you've ever seen ww2 combat footage from a fighter, you'll notice that the bullets are a bit innacurate and they don't fly in strait lines. They fly in thin spirals. I think it would add a killing touch of realism to the otherwise very realistic game. Currently the bullets look like perfect laser blasts from a starwars movie. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thin spirals I think has also been described as "squiggles". This effect is produced by the shaking of the gun camera (or rather the shaking of the plane) that is firing the tracers.

You'll notice in a few rare shots where another plane is firing rather than the gun camera plane (in those brief half seconds where the guns may not be firing) that the tracers are indeed straight. Pilot accounts back that up as do a number of modern day footage using the same style of tracer round that was used in WWII aviation.

So yes, tracers are actually sort of StarWars like in look. Guess where StarWars draws much of its inspiration for the space combat sequences: You guessed it...its a very World War II like style. Obvious embellished like any piece of entertainment but realistically so.

The tracers do need work and I would expect them to look nicer in the next major variant of the series (i.e. BoB) but they are realistic in their basic visual.

Zyzbot
02-17-2005, 09:26 PM
Want to see tracers? try here:

http://vampirebat.com/war/gatlinggun.wmv

Badsight.
02-17-2005, 09:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lwiklendt:
If you've ever seen ww2 combat footage from a fighter, you'll notice that the bullets are a bit innacurate and they don't fly in strait lines. They fly in thin spirals. I think it would add a killing touch of realism to the otherwise very realistic game. Currently the bullets look like perfect laser blasts from a starwars movie. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>i know exactly what you mean WRT RL guncam bullets

but this is a much simpler enviroment in FB than what actually exists

smatchimo
02-17-2005, 11:34 PM
Actually I remember early on in IL2 some of the tracer smoke would corkscrew (particularly the 109), Im not sure why it is no longer in the game. But as far as the glowing tracer itself, the squiggly effect on guncams is mostly due to camera shake.

Cheers!

plumps_
02-18-2005, 01:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by smatchimo:
Actually I remember early on in IL2 some of the tracer smoke would corkscrew (particularly the 109), Im not sure why it is no longer in the game. But as far as the glowing tracer itself, the squiggly effect on guncams is mostly due to camera shake.

Cheers! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm not sure why you think that's no longer there. It still is. Try the Bf-109 F or G 2.

SonOfTheBeach69
02-18-2005, 05:05 AM
I think the MG151/20 makes that corkscrew effect.

smatchimo
02-18-2005, 05:07 AM
Ahh my bad, havent flown much LW lately, Oh well off to fly the 109!

-Cheers!

Bearcat99
02-18-2005, 07:16 AM
Its on the 190s too.

Treetop64
02-18-2005, 04:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zyzbot:
Want to see tracers? try here:

http://vampirebat.com/war/gatlinggun.wmv <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dude, now that was some insane stuff there... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Aztek_Eagle
02-18-2005, 05:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Treetop64:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zyzbot:
Want to see tracers? try here:

http://vampirebat.com/war/gatlinggun.wmv <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dude, now that was some insane stuff there... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

notice how bullets bounce for the sky again? they were ataking some kind of alien magnetic force field or something?

Chuck_Older
02-18-2005, 06:32 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I have a friend who was a Nuke on a US aircraft carrier about 15 years ago

He was Master at Arms once upon a time, and got to fire one of the electrically operated 'chain guns'

He told me it looked like nothing so much as the laser beams from a TIE fighter

An aircraft carrier is a heck of a lot heavier than an airplane, so the gun platform (ship) wasn't shaken by the weapon

Also- take footage from WWII guncams with a very small grain of salt- they were often poorly exposed, so what you see in the film is not 100% as it was for real- often it was overexposed, and also, this was the day of old-timey tech, no digital photography, so the technical guy who unloaded the guncam might damage the film. An airplane going 250 mph is not a SteadyCam, and the pilot has no way of knowing if the camera is operating correctly- he just presses the 'go' button http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Cragger
02-18-2005, 06:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lwiklendt:
If you've ever seen ww2 combat footage from a fighter, you'll notice that the bullets are a bit innacurate and they don't fly in strait lines. They fly in thin spirals. I think it would add a killing touch of realism to the otherwise very realistic game. Currently the bullets look like perfect laser blasts from a starwars movie. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>i know exactly what you mean WRT RL guncam bullets

but this is a much simpler enviroment in FB than what actually exists <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

*smacks head on desk*

Bullets 'tracers' DO NOT Fly in 'squiggles' this has been explained to you MULTIPLE times in various threads that the image you see in gun camera footage is caused by the vibrations from the guns that these camera are mounted to or mounted to the same thing (wing spars). Watch some real footage of tracer fire filmed from a perspective no effected by the vibration of the guns. (Again multiple posting of this one even in this thread BEFORE this post, which again shows people just read the first post and not the following ones!) ARGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH! *passes out*

TAGERT.
02-18-2005, 06:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lwiklendt:
If you've ever seen ww2 combat footage from a fighter, you'll notice that the bullets are a bit innacurate and they don't fly in strait lines. They fly in thin spirals. I think it would add a killing touch of realism to the otherwise very realistic game. Currently the bullets look like perfect laser blasts from a starwars movie. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I dont want a simulator that simulates what shaking a WWII gun camera sees.

Weather_Man
02-18-2005, 09:23 PM
I would hope that something that travels in the neighborhood of 3,050 feet per second (2,080 MPH) doesn't wobble around in little squigglies. How the heck would a sniper ever hit a dime at 1000 yards?

That vid was cooool. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

lwiklendt
02-18-2005, 09:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lwiklendt:
If you've ever seen ww2 combat footage from a fighter, you'll notice that the bullets are a bit innacurate and they don't fly in strait lines. They fly in thin spirals. I think it would add a killing touch of realism to the otherwise very realistic game. Currently the bullets look like perfect laser blasts from a starwars movie. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thin spirals I think has also been described as "squiggles". This effect is produced by the shaking of the gun camera (or rather the shaking of the plane) that is firing the tracers.

You'll notice in a few rare shots where another plane is firing rather than the gun camera plane (in those brief half seconds where the guns may not be firing) that the tracers are indeed straight. Pilot accounts back that up as do a number of modern day footage using the same style of tracer round that was used in WWII aviation.

So yes, tracers are actually sort of StarWars like in look. Guess where StarWars draws much of its inspiration for the space combat sequences: You guessed it...its a very World War II like style. Obvious embellished like any piece of entertainment but realistically so.

The tracers do need work and I would expect them to look nicer in the next major variant of the series (i.e. BoB) but they are realistic in their basic visual. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for your reply, it is very informative. Sorry if i've posted a question that was already asked, but I did a search and couldn't find anything on it, didn't know what it was called so I must have searched for the wrong thing.

mortoma
02-19-2005, 12:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lwiklendt:
If you've ever seen ww2 combat footage from a fighter, you'll notice that the bullets are a bit innacurate and they don't fly in strait lines. They fly in thin spirals. I think it would add a killing touch of realism to the otherwise very realistic game. Currently the bullets look like perfect laser blasts from a starwars movie. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thin spirals I think has also been described as "squiggles". This effect is produced by the shaking of the gun camera (or rather the shaking of the plane) that is firing the tracers.

You'll notice in a few rare shots where another plane is firing rather than the gun camera plane (in those brief half seconds where the guns may not be firing) that the tracers are indeed straight. Pilot accounts back that up as do a number of modern day footage using the same style of tracer round that was used in WWII aviation.

So yes, tracers are actually sort of StarWars like in look. Guess where StarWars draws much of its inspiration for the space combat sequences: You guessed it...its a very World War II like style. Obvious embellished like any piece of entertainment but realistically so.

The tracers do need work and I would expect them to look nicer in the next major variant of the series (i.e. BoB) but they are realistic in their basic visual. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That may explain to some degree (very small degree ) the 'squiggles' seen in the old footage. However my brother and I have fired tracer ammo into the side of a hill at night, from our AR-15 ( .223 cal/5.56mm ) rifles and both times he shot his rifle, his tracers 'squiggled', as you put it. But mine were laser beam perfect. My gun was newer and had a less worn barrel, while his rifle was old and needed re-barreled. His tracers looked EXACTLY like the wobbly tracers seen in the old archival footage!!! So it also can be caused by worn or very hot barrels too.

mortoma
02-19-2005, 12:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Weather_Man:
I would hope that something that travels in the neighborhood of 3,050 feet per second (2,080 MPH) doesn't wobble around in little squigglies. How the heck would a sniper ever hit a dime at 1000 yards?

That vid was cooool. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You would hope that, but if you knew much about weapons and firing them, you'd know it happens. I'm an experienced gun buff, so I know. But I guess in other countries you folks would not experience this since most other countries besides US don't allow civilians to use guns, or own them.

mortoma
02-19-2005, 12:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cragger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lwiklendt:
If you've ever seen ww2 combat footage from a fighter, you'll notice that the bullets are a bit innacurate and they don't fly in strait lines. They fly in thin spirals. I think it would add a killing touch of realism to the otherwise very realistic game. Currently the bullets look like perfect laser blasts from a starwars movie. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>i know exactly what you mean WRT RL guncam bullets

but this is a much simpler enviroment in FB than what actually exists <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

*smacks head on desk*

Bullets 'tracers' DO NOT Fly in 'squiggles' this has been explained to you MULTIPLE times in various threads that the image you see in gun camera footage is caused by the vibrations from the guns that these camera are mounted to or mounted to the same thing (wing spars). Watch some real footage of tracer fire filmed from a perspective no effected by the vibration of the guns. (Again multiple posting of this one even in this thread BEFORE this post, which again shows people just read the first post and not the following ones!) ARGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH! *passes out* <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Bulloney! Have you ever fired a gun with tracers at night?? I have and if you'd be so kind as to read some of my other posts in here, you'd see that hot or worn barrels can and do shoot tracer bullets that wiggle and it's not always due to the camera but they are really wiggling/corkscrewing through the air. In combat it was not uncommon for the pilots to overheat thier barrels, even to the point of permanently ruining them by holding the trigger down too long. Fully automatic fire can get a barrel to almost melting point in no time!! I'd think if I were a little bullet being fired from a barrel that was at melting point, I might wiggle too. I guess a lot of you guys don't know much about guns/weapons!!! Whoa....

fherathras
02-19-2005, 12:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Weather_Man:
I would hope that something that travels in the neighborhood of 3,050 feet per second (2,080 MPH) doesn't wobble around in little squigglies. How the heck would a sniper ever hit a dime at 1000 yards?

That vid was cooool. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You would hope that, but if you knew much about weapons and firing them, you'd know it happens. I'm an experienced gun buff, so I know. But I guess in other countries you folks would not experience this since most other countries besides US don't allow civilians to use guns, or own them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



mortoma...



you need to study up on other countries gun laws,
You are just plain WRONG on this one.



Other then that, you are right, bullets do small circles`n stuff, but not so mutch that it will affect the course of the projectile. and certaily not so mutch that we should se it.



Try fireing a gun,and tape it with a slow motion camera.


you will be able to see that Tracers are alot more "squiggly" than the rest of the bullets.


and thats also why you shouldt judge your aim acording to tracers.

mortoma
02-19-2005, 12:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I have a friend who was a Nuke on a US aircraft carrier about 15 years ago

He was Master at Arms once upon a time, and got to fire one of the electrically operated 'chain guns'

He told me it looked like nothing so much as the laser beams from a TIE fighter

An aircraft carrier is a heck of a lot heavier than an airplane, so the gun platform (ship) wasn't shaken by the weapon

Also- take footage from WWII guncams with a very small grain of salt- they were often poorly exposed, so what you see in the film is not 100% as it was for real- often it was overexposed, and also, this was the day of old-timey tech, no digital photography, so the technical guy who unloaded the guncam might damage the film. An airplane going 250 mph is not a SteadyCam, and the pilot has no way of knowing if the camera is operating correctly- he just presses the 'go' button http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>His guns let loose smooth tracer bullets because in peace time the US Navy takes care of it's weapons really well and they change their barrels before any "squiggles" would develop. So you only saw part of the picture.

You saw bullets being fired from barrels that were new or almost new, most likely. That makes a huge difference. Tracer fire from weapons can look exactly like the old guncam footage ( and with the naked eye at that too ). I've seen it before.

Nobody here is going to tell me anything because I know, plain and simple. Firing a weapon once or twice in your life won't tell you much and I'd bet most of the guys in here have never fired any type of weapon other than an air rifle/BB gun or a paint ball gun. So how would they know about this stuff?? Take it from a guy who has fired hundreds of types of weapons ( including .50 cal. ) thousands of times in his life. Thank you very much.

fherathras
02-19-2005, 12:34 PM
One thing i have to say, is that i have even seen 7,62mm NATO tracers bounse off snow.

it doest take alot to stop them.

mortoma
02-19-2005, 12:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by fherathras:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Weather_Man:
I would hope that something that travels in the neighborhood of 3,050 feet per second (2,080 MPH) doesn't wobble around in little squigglies. How the heck would a sniper ever hit a dime at 1000 yards?

That vid was cooool. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You would hope that, but if you knew much about weapons and firing them, you'd know it happens. I'm an experienced gun buff, so I know. But I guess in other countries you folks would not experience this since most other countries besides US don't allow civilians to use guns, or own them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



mortoma...



you need to study up on other countries gun laws,
You are just plain WRONG on this one.



Other then that, you are right, bullets do small circles`n stuff, but not so mutch that it will affect the course of the projectile. and certaily not so mutch that we should se it.



Try fireing a gun,and tape it with a slow motion camera.


you will be able to see that Tracers are alot more "squiggly" than the rest of the bullets.


and thats also why you shouldt judge your aim acording to tracers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ok sorry, there are few, Canada still has some limited gun freedom as does Switzerland, but in their case that's only because the entire population is considered part of the military, or that's what I read somewhere. In many countries you can own them but only keep them at a rifle ranges and usually disassembled at that.
Australia still allows slow action types, as far as I know. But not semi-autos or pumps. Most other countires besides the US, if they are allowed to have guns in thier homes at all, must either lock them up or keep them dissassembled.
So what I said I guess is not entirely true.
I did not mean guns in all other countries are entirely outlawed!!
As far as tracers, they don't always appear to wiggle any more than non-tracers. And even non-tracers can wiggle like crazy if the gun barrel is worn out or too hot, or both. Most of the effect you see in old guncam footage is not, I repeat not, the camera doing it, but they are really wiggling due to hot or worn barrels!! A lot of people don't know what they are talking about and know nothing of weapons or ballistics, unlike myself. It has to do with barrel condition, not vibrating cameras!! I don't know where people hear this junk from anyway, I swear.

Oh, I almost forgot, a sniper who hits a dime at a 1,000 yards is not going to use an old worn out barrel!!!

mortoma
02-19-2005, 01:31 PM
Oh and another thing, I remember quite clearly of reading the exploits of a W.WII Jug pilot who stated that his "tracers were going all over the place" and related that when he got back to home base, he had to have his barrels changed. He said it was because he held down his fire button on an Fw-190 too long and his barrels had nearly melted!! This was common place in both W.W.II and Korea. Barrels would get so bad that they'd spew ammo everywhere but the plane they were shooting at, this is historical fact. And barrels were changed as often as underpants.

Cragger
02-19-2005, 06:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cragger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lwiklendt:
If you've ever seen ww2 combat footage from a fighter, you'll notice that the bullets are a bit innacurate and they don't fly in strait lines. They fly in thin spirals. I think it would add a killing touch of realism to the otherwise very realistic game. Currently the bullets look like perfect laser blasts from a starwars movie. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>i know exactly what you mean WRT RL guncam bullets

but this is a much simpler enviroment in FB than what actually exists <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

*smacks head on desk*

Bullets 'tracers' DO NOT Fly in 'squiggles' this has been explained to you MULTIPLE times in various threads that the image you see in gun camera footage is caused by the vibrations from the guns that these camera are mounted to or mounted to the same thing (wing spars). Watch some real footage of tracer fire filmed from a perspective no effected by the vibration of the guns. (Again multiple posting of this one even in this thread BEFORE this post, which again shows people just read the first post and not the following ones!) ARGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH! *passes out* <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Bulloney! Have you ever fired a gun with tracers at night?? I have and if you'd be so kind as to read some of my other posts in here, you'd see that hot or worn barrels can and do shoot tracer bullets that wiggle and it's not always due to the camera but they are really wiggling/corkscrewing through the air. In combat it was not uncommon for the pilots to overheat thier barrels, even to the point of permanently ruining them by holding the trigger down too long. Fully automatic fire can get a barrel to almost melting point in no time!! I'd think if I were a little bullet being fired from a barrel that was at melting point, I might wiggle too. I guess a lot of you guys don't know much about guns/weapons!!! Whoa.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually I have, many of them. From .30 Browinings to M2s bipods. Worn out or overheated barrels DO NOT produce the same 'squiggle' effect seen in old gun cam footage and if you where even half the gun nut you proclaim yourself to be you would know why. Barrels that are overheated become softer as they become softer the riflings in the barrel are widened by the bullets passing along them. This causes the subsequent rounds to be underspun by a gradually decreasing twist to the barrel.

Underspun rounds do NOT Squiggle 'I.E. jump all over the place' they tumble and because of their tumble they corkscrew thru the air in a increasing diameter due to the same physics that knuckle balls and curve balls rely on. However, due to their velocity one does not see an extreme curvature in the flight of a tracer that is underspun before the tracer compound is spent or the round has reached its terminal point 'hit something'.

If you ever have or find yourself the opporunity to fire an automatic weapon again hold your head right up against it if its safe to do so depending on the weapon and look downrange as you fire. You'll see nearly the same effect as seen in old guncam footage as the cameras where either mounted to the gun or to the same support the gun itself was mounted to.

Add to the fact that their high speed cameras and therefore you see it in 'slow motion' on playback you get the squiggles as the camera shakes and each frame is slightly off center to the previous frame. if you'll watch you'll notice the aircraft in the picture 'squiggles' as well but because its large enough it is blurry to the casual eye as the inconsistent frames are blended in the minds eye.

And finally this will be the first and last time I ever respond to one of your post mortoma as you are as the saying goes an Open Book but Closed Mind. You make up or using second hand hearsay to reinforce your statements and seem to think that a flurry of rapid fire posts are better than one well thought out post.

In effect you are a waste of time to communicate to as your in your own world where your always right and everyone else is always wrong. I know I've been there.

lrrp22
02-19-2005, 10:49 PM
mortoma,

I've fired tens of thousands of tracer rounds at night- in 5.56, 7.62, 7.62x39, 12.7 and 25 mm, and I have yet to see a tracer 'wiggle' that hadn't hit something first. I've put rounds down range with the M-249 and M-60 until their barrels glowed, but I've never seen anything that looked remotely like the 'squigles' in some gun cam footage. Your bro's AR barrel must be *really* worn- like smooth bore worn- to do that! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Chuck_Older
02-19-2005, 11:41 PM
Never fired a tracer round, or anything larger than a .44. Nearly dislocated my shoulder with a shotgun once, and my Dad's 30-06 is still daring me to take it out to the range. He's got a breech-loading Springfield as well, but that would knock me over, I think

All I can do is relate the stories from the horse's mouth about tracers, which I did.

As far as the guncam footage being the samea s the naked eye's view...I cannot agree, mortoma

The film can get overexposed by the tracer, and appear brighter than it really is. Can, not must.

Treetop64
02-20-2005, 01:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Treetop64:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
mortoma,

I've fired tens of thousands of tracer rounds at night- in 5.56, 7.62, 7.62x39, 12.7 and 25 mm, and I have yet to see a tracer 'wiggle' that hadn't hit something first. I've put rounds down range with the M-249 and M-60 until their barrels glowed, but I've never seen anything that looked remotely like the 'squigles' in some gun cam footage. Your bro's AR barrel must be *really* worn- like smooth bore worn- to do that! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, same thing here, except that I haven't fired quite as many as tens of thousands of rounds. However, we werent firing a projectile that travels near, or faster, than the speed of sound while already traveling three or four hundred miles per hour ourselves.

I'm postulating that the spiral effect is caused by excess aerodynamic forces acting on the round being fired from an aircraft that is already travelling 200-400+ MPH, and is combining this speed with the muzzle velocity of the round itself. In this situation the round would be traveling at a much greater speed than it's design actually intended, at least in the case of many of the smaller rifle caliber weapons mounted on fighter aircraft. The forces of drag would be phoenominal, as drag increses exponentially with every incremental increase in speed. Couple this to any slight imbalances the round may already possess and those created during the firing process, and the result is that the round "sqiggles" under these particularly extreme stressors.

I believe only the smaller, rifle caliber rounds are affected, as noted earlier. The larger, more destructive rounds (i.e. 20mm and up) probably resist this affect due to their greater mass and energy.

However, I am only making something of an educated guess here. I hope it all makes sense...

"Treetop" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

TAGERT.
02-20-2005, 10:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
Nobody here is going to tell me anything because I know, plain and simple. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hello, NOBODY HERE, telling you your wrong. That or you don't understand what is being said here. We are NOT talking about bullets taking slightly different trajectories due to a worn out or hot barrel. What we are talking about is a bullet that hops up and down (squiggles) along a trajectory. That is physically impossible. As for tracers, yes, they can have very different trajectories than the bullet, which is why alot of pilots in WWI didnt use them, but even they can NOT HOP (squiggle) up and down along a trajectory like they *appear* to do in that old gun camera footage.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
Firing a weapon once or twice in your life won't tell you much and I'd bet most of the guys in here have never fired any type of weapon other than an air rifle/BB gun or a paint ball gun. So how would they know about this stuff?? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Guess again.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/MY_MUG/smallshooting01.JPG
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/MY_MUG/smallshooting03.JPG

That and 13 years in the military (ARMY and AIR FORCE) where I got to shoot all kinds of weapons, .50cal too.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
Take it from a guy who has fired hundreds of types of weapons ( including .50 cal. ) thousands of times in his life. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Take it from a guy who has fired hundreds of types of weapons ( including .50 cal. ) thousands of times in his life, AND studied physics and knows that in free flight bullets can NOT HOP (squiggle) along a trajectory like they do in the old gun camera footage.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
Thank you very much. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Your welcome.

mortoma
02-20-2005, 12:18 PM
But the fact remains that tracer bullets can and do fishtail and it happens every time my brother fires his little 5.56 with tracer rounds. Just because you guys have not seen it or rarely seen it makes no difference to me. Because I have seen it first hand with my naked eye and not through any f'ing camera either. And it looks exactly, and I do mean EXACTLY like the footage from old guncams. It's not so much a spiral corkscrew but more like a sinewave shape, and that's exactly like I have seen in the footage from old W.W.II planes!!! I'm sorry, I've seen what I have seen and nobody is going to convince me otherwise. It's anecdotal and one must take my word for it in the same fashion one must take the word of someone who claims to have seen a UFO or Bigfoot. But I don't care what anybody in here says, nor do I care if they believe me or not. I know within myself that I'm right and the old guncam footage is not due to 'camera vibration' or any such nonsense. But that's also how it looks to the naked eye. It's more from the barrel wear/hot barrel phenomenon or the barrel itself vibrating durin firing, not the stupid camera. I just don't care if anyone beleves me or not. I'd be glad to borrow my brothers AR-15 and show anybody, but I'd have to travel to Indiana to get the S.O.B. But I'd do it if someone were to bet me a bit of money on it. $2000.00 bucks says my brother's gun fires squiggly looking tracers, that look just like the ones in guncam footage. I'd travel 1500 miles to go back to Indiana for that!!

And Tagert, you are so desperate to make me look bad you even tried to suggest it was terrible for me to make a bunch of posts rather than one big one. Well, it just so happens that I'd make a post and then later think of something else to say, plus I wanted to respond to certain individuals separately. This is not abnormal. Kind of ticky-tack to make light of something like that.

I realize some may be angered of my cockiness but I just got mad that so many people spout off so much junk as if they are know-it-alls. I was just mad since I had seen squiggly tracers myself and then read about people who said it ain't so, that they always fly perfectly!! My brother's gun never fires perfect tracers!! They ain't no laser beam looking trails.

TAGERT.
02-20-2005, 12:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
But the fact remains that tracer bullets can and do fishtail and it happens every time my brother fires his little 5.56 with tracer rounds. Just because you guys have not seen it or rarely seen it makes no difference to me. Because I have seen it first hand with my naked eye and not through any f'ing camera either. And it looks exactly, and I do mean EXACTLY like the footage from old guncams. It's not so much a spiral corkscrew but more like a sinewave shape, and that's exactly like I have seen in the footage from old W.W.II planes!!!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>As I thought, you are not talking about what we are talking about. Tracers can and do have different tragectorys than the bullets, and they can have odd tragectorys due to defomation during flight.. But they can not HOP UP and DOWN like the WWII gun cam footage that *we* are talking about. Where you are not part of we.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
I'm sorry, I've seen what I have seen and nobody is going to convince me otherwise. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Actully nobody really cares what you or I think, so, nobody really cares if you or I are convined. So you and yours can belive that the shakie hopping WWII gun cam footage is real.. But the folks who know dont really care what you think.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
It's anecdotal and one must take my word for it in the same fashion one must take the word of someone who claims to have seen a UFO or Bigfoot. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>True.. and I belive you as much as I do them.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
But I don't care what anybody in here says, nor do I care if they believe me or not. I know within myself that I'm right and the old guncam footage is not due to 'camera vibration' or any such nonsense. But that's also how it looks to the naked eye. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! Maybe gun cam footage from a UFO.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
It's more from the barrel wear/hot barrel phenomenon or the barrel itself vibrating during firing, not the stupid camera. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not true.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
I just don't care if anyone believes me or not. I'd be glad to borrow my brothers AR-15 and show anybody, but I'd have to travel to Indiana to get the S.O.B. But I'd do it if someone were to bet me a bit of money on it. $2000.00 bucks says my brother's gun fires squiggly looking tracers, that look just like the ones in guncam footage. I'd travel 1500 miles to go back to Indiana for that!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Id pay $2000.00 to see you shake hands with Big Foot.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
And Tagert, you are so desperate to make me look bad you even tried to suggest it was terrible for me to make a bunch of posts rather than one big one. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Seeing things again?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
Well, it just so happens that I'd make a post and then later think of something else to say, plus I wanted to respond to certain individuals separately. This is not abnormal. Kind of ticky-tack to make light of something like that. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I can not help it, a little green man had a ray gun to my head at the time I posted that, and I sat in fear of a shakie wave of light passing through my head.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
I realize some may be angered of my cockiness but I just got mad that so many people spout off so much junk as if they are know-it-alls. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I too realize some may be angered of my cockiness but I just got mad that so many people spout off so much junk as if they are know-it-alls.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
I was just mad since I had seen squiggly tracers myself and then read about people who said it ain't so, that they always fly perfectly!! My brother's gun never fires perfect tracers!! They ain't no laser beam looking trails. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Was you brother shooting at Big Foot at the time? And was this before or after the UFO took you guys aboard?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
And another thing, if you or you buds never saw tracers fly weird then maybe you weren't in wartime conditions and fired a full auto long enough to hurt the barrels. Maybe you were not in a Jug in WWII desperately trying to survive and kill and FW before he gets you?? Such desperation andfear was often enough to get pilots to hold thier triggers down for too long of a burst. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I like the way you have played it down from squiglly to fly weird. Are you back peddeling for your next post where you agree with us?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
A near melted barrel will spew stuff all over the place, tracer rounds or non-tracer. And they'll get a sinewavey fishtail to them in many cases, like in the footage too. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yup, your not talking about what were talking about.

mortoma
02-20-2005, 01:18 PM
What matters is that tracers sometimes LOOK like exactly what's in the footage. The why's and wherefores are all irrelevant. You can spout off all the scientific and technical mumbo jumbo you want but what I have seen with my own eyes looks exactly like the guncam footage, period, end of discussion. Don't you get it?? The point of this thread was some guy said he wanted to see tracers look like the old guncam footage. Then some people came in here and said it doesn't look like that and even that it can't possibly look like that. I came in here, saw the folly of their comments and pointed out that tracers can and in many cases do, look exactly like the footage they've seen, in real life and with the naked eye, no cameras or camera vibration involved. More like barrel vibrations and other effects. I'm right and they're wrong, it's just plain easy to understand, isn't it?? Where are you confused?? And why would I come in here and
refute the stuff people are saying and just make it up. Point is Tagert, you are calling me a liar and now you are suggesting I'm a nut case because of the UFO analogy. This is getting personal now. The analogy was only to point out that what I'm saying has to be taken as my word, no proof except I go round up some of you guys with the rifle and show you. I'm telling you tracers can and sometimes do look like that. And it's not uncommon at all.

mortoma
02-20-2005, 01:39 PM
Tagert wrote:
"I like the way you have played it down from squiglly to fly weird. Are you back peddeling for your next post where you agree with us?"

Call it what you will but the sinewave 'up and down' look of the tracers I saw with my own eyes could be called "squiggly". Or you could call it fishtailing. And for the millionth time, what I saw looked exactly like the guncam footage that is often shown from WWII films. And I do mean exactly like that. It was a vertical sinewave pattern. And I wasn't looking through any shakey old fashion vintage WWII camera either. And it doesn't matter if the bullet in question is really going up/down or whatever. Only thing that matters here is that it looks like it does in some cases it looks like the old footage. It's all about what it looks like, that's all we're concerned about here. Sometimes and maybe most of the time, tracers do look like laser beams though. But they can and sometimes do look very, very squiggly to the naked eye. So if Oleg implemented it in the sim, ( I personally don't care if he did or not ) it would actually be quite authentic because it probably did look like that to a pilot of the era.

Red_Russian13
02-20-2005, 01:48 PM
Tagert;

Nice Enfield and Mosin! Both yours?

When I was in Afghanistan, a guy GAVE me an Enfield No 1 MkIII. It had some slight rust damage on the outside, but I cleaned it up nice and it looked great. The action was so smooth. I loved that weapon. But, alas, as Afghanistan was still on the "proscribed nations" list (because of the Taliban), I was not allowed to import it, even after applying. The State Dept's just too slow to catch up.

So, that piece of history sits in Kabul still, very likely in the Embassy. Wish I knew someone over there who could help me get it back...

Might upload a picture later...

Got me a nice Mosin Sniper too. It's fun to shoot.

Sorry, that was WAY off topic!

DuxCorvan
02-20-2005, 01:52 PM
Oh! what a manly discussion! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Unfortunately, I just use to shoot my body-mounted weapons. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

mortoma
02-20-2005, 01:56 PM
And another thing to point out is that many weapons of today usually have chrome-lined barrels, especially US service weapons. This may have something to do with the phenomenon not being witnessed by some of you current military service people. Maybe the newer barrels are less subject to causing tracers to look like that. Although this is just a theory.

TAGERT.
02-20-2005, 02:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
What matters is that tracers sometimes LOOK like exactly what's in the footage. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, sorry, not like the footage we are talking about.. But with regards to your back peddling statement of fly weird, yes, nobody ever said they didn't.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
The why's and wherefores are all irrelevant. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hardly, the why and wherefore physics of it all is hardly irrelevant.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
You can spout off all the scientific and technical mumbo jumbo you want but what I have seen with my own eyes looks exactly like the guncam footage, period, end of discussion. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You can spout off all the non-scientific and non-technical mumbo jumbo you want but what I have seen with my own eyes does not look like the guncam footage, period, end of discussion.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
Don't you get it?? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Don't you? What part of physics don't you understand?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
The point of this thread was some guy said he wanted to see tracers look like the old guncam footage. Then some people came in here and said it doesn't look like that and even that it can't possibly look like that. I came in here, saw the folly of their comments and pointed out that tracers can and in many cases do, look exactly like the footage they've seen, in real life and with the naked eye, no cameras or camera vibration involved. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The point is what you say you saw is physically impossible. But, I still think it is because you don't realize just what it is we are talking about. I belive that you *belive* what you saw.. in that I too have seen.. how did you say it? trasers that fly weird, but you incorrectly equate that to all WWII gun footage. Your error not mine.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
More like barrel vibrations and other effects. I'm right and they're wrong, it's just plain easy to understand, isn't it?? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>For some, but you seem to be taking your time about it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
Where are you confused?? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm confused about your total ignorance to the physics of it all.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
And why would I come in here and refute the stuff people are saying and just make it up. Point is Tagert, you are calling me a liar and now you are suggesting I'm a nut case because of the UFO analogy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>First off, never said you are a liar, as a mater of fact I have noted on several ocations that it is clear your not talking about what we are talking about, as for the UFO stuff, you brought it up as an example of what people have to be able to belive to belive what your saying, i.e. the anecdotal, part. Where as what we are saying is not anecdotal, and has the support of real world physics.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
This is getting personal now. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Only because you are clearly confused. Re-read my posts.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
The analogy was only to point out that what I'm saying has to be taken as my word, no proof except I go round up some of you guys with the rifle and show you. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Your word means nothing to me.. 30 years of shooting guns and years of physics does. Now I don't know what you saw on that UFO with the Big Foot at the wheel.. Maybe our physics does not work on the planet they came from and clearly took you too.. So, just to be clear, we are talking about how bullets work here on EARTH! Just encase there is any confusion on that.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
I'm telling you tracers can and sometimes do look like that. And it's not uncommon at all. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Fly weird, yes, hop up and down and left and right within an inch of travel like the WWII gun camera footage.. Not on *this* world.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
Call it what you will but the sinewave 'up and down' look of the tracers I saw with my own eyes could be called "squiggly". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And a Big Foot could be called a date on Friday night after 2:00PM, but not on *this* world.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
Or you could call it fishtailing. And for the millionth time, what I saw looked exactly like the guncam footage that is often shown from WWII films. And I do mean exactly like that. It was a vertical sinewave pattern. And I wasn't looking through any shakey old fashion vintage WWII camera either. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>My guess is about two more posts and you will have back pedded enough to agree with us, or reralise that you have been wrong from the get go as to what it is we are talking about.

VOL_Hans
02-20-2005, 03:07 PM
I have to agree that the squiggly tracer effect would be a bad idea. This was tried in B-17 II The Mighty Eighth... It didn't work.

Tracer smoke and other improvements could be made. Bouncing rounds (use the current white streak we see when shooting IL-2's) could be added when shooting at the ground.

We dont need many, if we had one for every 100 rounds or more it would be very very few, but still add a much better effect than we have now.

Same thing with smoke for .50 cals. ALL of the guns dont need to have smoke, a thin, generic smoke trail coming from the general area where the guns are could add much to the look of firing the weapons.

lwiklendt
02-23-2005, 02:57 AM
So far, the posts have been a little off-topic. Too many posts about hand rifles etc. Of interest, is the path created by tracers during the ww2 era from planes, using barrels and bullets of that time. Does anyone know where I can download footage of figher cameras? I'd like to study the film and see if parts of the plane wiggle in the same fashion as the tracers. This will reveal if the tracers flew smoothly or in squiggles.

Also, one possible explaination for not seeing the squiggle effect from other planes is that the wave-length of the squiggle could be too long for it to be noticed. Possible, only under acute angles such as pilot or camera could it be seen.

TAGERT.
02-23-2005, 10:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lwiklendt:
So far, the posts have been a little off-topic. Too many posts about hand rifles etc. Of interest, is the path created by tracers during the ww2 era from planes, using barrels and bullets of that time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The physics of bullets dont change much.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lwiklendt:
Does anyone know where I can download footage of figher cameras? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>try google, mostly stills, there is http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/main.html Not sure if he has any gun cam stuff, but I think he does? Im trying to find the one they use to use in the TV show black sheep. There was a reall good film real that showed the tracers hopping back and forth about 5" along the tragectory path. Something that is physically imposable.. I have seen some where they dont hop much at all.. Then I have seen some that dont hop at all and look like lazers.. All .50 cal stuff.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lwiklendt:
I'd like to study the film and see if parts of the plane wiggle in the same fashion as the tracers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I have seen some that show some shake of the cockpit.. Not the typical gun cam stuff.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lwiklendt:
This will reveal if the tracers flew smoothly or in squiggles. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not really, in that relitive to the film speed, some things will appear to shake while others dont. Which is why you will note in alot of the stills the plane they are shooting at is not hopping (squiggly) and the tracers appears to be hopping (squiggly).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lwiklendt:
Also, one possible explaination for not seeing the squiggle effect from other planes is that the wave-length of the squiggle could be too long for it to be noticed. Possible, only under acute angles such as pilot or camera could it be seen. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Nah, it is because they were not shaking.

Equilizer
02-23-2005, 10:44 AM
http://www.bf109.com/gallery/109images/gall10904lg.jpg

TAGERT.
02-23-2005, 10:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Equilizer:
http://www.bf109.com/gallery/109images/gall10904lg.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So much for the wave-length of the squiggle and acute angles theory! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Chuck_Older
02-23-2005, 03:36 PM
Pfft. Facts. Anyone can prove anything even remotely true with those things.

TAGERT.
02-23-2005, 04:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Pfft. Facts. Anyone can prove anything even remotely true with those things. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! The old saying.. A picture is worth a 1000 words. To really nip it in the but though.. I should have asked a few question instead of making a few, what I thought, were well understood statements. If I were to start over I would ask the following in order.

1) Ever heard of the notion of equal and opposite force?

If they ansewr no, well stop right there, and realise that you can do here, in a few posts, what high school failed to do in 12 years. If they answered yes, then follow up with the following question

2) What force is acting on the bullet after it leaves the barrel to cause the bullet to deflect LEFT/UP, and then a half second later deflect RIGHT/DOWN and the repeat over and over again to create the so called squiggle effect.

I think that leading them down that path may have help them see the light sooner?

Be sure, there will allays be the ones that don't get it (i.e. answered no to question #1) and consider all that *stuff* to be nothing more than someone "Spouting off all that scientific and technical mumbo jumbo" but they are probably also the ones that think the landing on the moon was filmed in a Hollywood studio.. So, who really cares what those people think anyway? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

unclehubert
02-23-2005, 04:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Pfft. Facts. Anyone can prove anything even remotely true with those things. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! The old saying.. A picture is worth a 1000 words. To really nip it in the but though.. I should have asked a few question instead of making a few, what I thought, were well understood statements. If I were to start over I would ask the following in order.

1) Ever heard of the notion of equal and opposite force?

If they ansewr no, well stop right there, and realise that you can do here, in a few posts, what high school failed to do in 12 years. If they answered yes, then follow up with the following question

2) What force is acting on the bullet after it leaves the barrel to cause the bullet to deflect LEFT/UP, and then a half second later deflect RIGHT/DOWN and the repeat over and over again to create the so called squiggle effect.

I think that leading them down that path may have help them see the light sooner?

Be sure, there will allays be the ones that don't get it (i.e. answered no to question #1) and consider all that *stuff* to be nothing more than someone _"Spouting off all that scientific and technical mumbo jumbo"_ but they are probably also the ones that think the landing on the moon was filmed in a Hollywood studio.. So, who really cares what those people think anyway? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



hmmmm...could it be due to the spinning of the shell coming out of a rifled bore?? Even a little bit off tolerance might cause this.

TAGERT.
02-23-2005, 05:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by unclehubert:
hmmmm...could it be due to the spinning of the shell coming out of a rifled bore?? Even a little bit off tolerance might cause this. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, the riffling is use to induce the spin, which improves the trajectory, not make it worse, let along cause it to change BACK AND FORTH along the trajectory. But, good thought. But, question still stands, what force causes the bullet to hop up/down or left/right ALONG the tejectory that makes it appear to squiggle?

Answer is none.

The bullets do not squiggle, it is the vibrations on the camera that makes them appear to squiggle.

Tracers will sometimes take a *strage* trajectory relitive to the bullet due to deformation of the bullet as it burns. Which is why alot of US pilots didnt load tracer rounds. But, once they go off on a different trajectory, they keep going in that direction, they dont hop back to where they where, then to the right, then back to center, then to the left, then back to center , thus following along the inital trajectory.

Chuck_Older
02-23-2005, 05:34 PM
two things can also help on that explanation:

1. I have been shaken bodily in an aircraft to the point at which my eyes perceived everything to be moving up and down. That wasn't a fun landing...Logan in the snow...but the pilot kept it wheels side down, so it was a good landing in my book

2. Take a lok at how guncams were mounted in these planes. A good cutaway diagram explains so much. The location of the P-38 guncam for instance, has been described as being placed 'by some knothead; directly under a 20 mm cannon', making P-51 guncam footage look 'like Hollywood' by comparison- which shouldn't be misconstrued as proof P-51 footage was good- it was most likely pretty bad, but compared to the P-38's, very passable footage. The era we are discussing still is the one of the "Vultee Vibrator"- these things were just considered normal. I have no trouble logically surmising the camera is moving, not the tracer- because you are looking at the whole scene bass-ackwards, as it where- you're seeing the places the tracer has been from past vantage points. Your eye-point moved, not the tracer- but the tracer leaves an after-image, or over-exposure on film. It's like a photo of a sparkler on the 4th of July.

Liquid-Koshed
02-23-2005, 06:27 PM
You can see the effect in this still from guncam footage, the way I understand it is during each exposure both the camera and tracer has moved (camera also vibrating) which is recorded, the same effect can be achieved by leaving the shutter open on a camera, any moving object is blurred, the tracer maintains a steady trajectory to the target and does not squiggle through the air. It€˜s only a camera effect. Personally I wouldn€t want it incorporated into a sim as a tracer effect.
http://www.gamespec.co.uk/tracer%202.jpg

TAGERT.
02-23-2005, 07:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Liquid-Koshed:
You can see the effect in this still from guncam footage, the way I understand it is during each exposure both the camera and tracer has moved (camera also vibrating) which is recorded, the same effect can be achieved by leaving the shutter open on a camera, any moving object is blurred, the tracer maintains a steady trajectory to the target and does not squiggle through the air. It€˜s only a camera effect. Personally I wouldn€t want it incorporated into a sim as a tracer effect.
http://www.gamespec.co.uk/tracer%202.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Another picture that is worth a 1000 words

EnGaurde
02-23-2005, 09:07 PM
wow guys, talk about sleuths.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

all hail the power of the internet forum.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

is there nothing it cant answer when a bunch of complete strangers get together and try to prove each other wrong? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

VW-IceFire
02-23-2005, 09:15 PM
Someone hook us up with the P-39 in the dark firing test. That'll show yer lasers...err tracers really nicely http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

No really...very straight. Just like the 109 picture up there.

Camera shakes. Tracers don't...not according to everything that is sane and rational anyways http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Shadow1706
02-24-2005, 12:26 AM
Lot of tracers:

http://www.simnet.is/pah/hnetusteik/firepower.wmv

Cragger
02-24-2005, 02:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Shadow1706:
Lot of tracers:

http://www.simnet.is/pah/hnetusteik/firepower.wmv <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Posted on page one post three. Again someone that does not read a thread in its entirety before replying.

lwiklendt
02-24-2005, 06:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Pfft. Facts. Anyone can prove anything even remotely true with those things. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! The old saying.. A picture is worth a 1000 words. To really nip it in the but though.. I should have asked a few question instead of making a few, what I thought, were well understood statements. If I were to start over I would ask the following in order.

1) Ever heard of the notion of equal and opposite force?

If they ansewr no, well stop right there, and realise that you can do here, in a few posts, what high school failed to do in 12 years. If they answered yes, then follow up with the following question

2) What force is acting on the bullet after it leaves the barrel to cause the bullet to deflect LEFT/UP, and then a half second later deflect RIGHT/DOWN and the repeat over and over again to create the so called squiggle effect.

I think that leading them down that path may have help them see the light sooner?

Be sure, there will allays be the ones that don't get it (i.e. answered no to question #1) and consider all that *stuff* to be nothing more than someone _"Spouting off all that scientific and technical mumbo jumbo"_ but they are probably also the ones that think the landing on the moon was filmed in a Hollywood studio.. So, who really cares what those people think anyway? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, it just gets up my skin when people claim to know about physics, but they don't know enough.

1) Ever heard of the notion of equal and opposite force?

Yes.

2) What force is acting on the bullet after it leaves the barrel to cause the bullet to deflect LEFT/UP, and then a half second later deflect RIGHT/DOWN and the repeat over and over again to create the so called squiggle effect.

First of all, friction acts on the bullet as soon as it leaves the barrel. A bullet with a greater coefficient of friction on one side, while spinning, will produce a sprial path.

Anyway, that said, i'm fairly convinced that it is the shake of the camera. Check this out: http://www.fileplanet.com/dl.aspx?/planetrainbowsix/atwar/GR/media/vid_ww2luftvsspits.wmv

Towards the end of the film, you can clearly see when the camera starts and stops shaking, and that the squigles appear/disappear respectively.

JFC_danger
02-24-2005, 07:44 AM
ask yourself one thing........ what IS a tracer? is it not a bullet on fire so to speak? if so wuld the flame cause resistance against the air and cause it to emphasise on a slight wobble?

TAGERT.
02-24-2005, 09:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lwiklendt:
Sorry, it just gets up my skin when people claim to know about physics, but they don't know enough. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Don't be sorry and don't be too hard on yourself! A lot of guys like you who only take the introduction to physics and not three or more years of physics make a lot of mistakes.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lwiklendt:
Yes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Good, that is a start. But even a lot of first graders have heard the notion.. Knowing what it means is a different thing. I just use that question as a first cut, in that if you have not heard of it, there is no need to talk to you on it any further. In that I can not make up for what 12 years of high school failed to do.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lwiklendt:
First of all, friction acts on the bullet as soon as it leaves the barrel. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>First of all I never said it didn't act on the bullet. I simply asked *what* force would cause the RIGHT/DOWN and LEFT/UP squiggle effect. Oh, by the way you forgot to mention that gravity is acting on the bullet. Typically the introduction to physics people don't miss that? Did you ditch a lot of classes?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lwiklendt:
A bullet with a greater coefficient of friction on one side, while spinning, will produce a sprial path. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! On one side huh? So you got a pretty banged up and or deformed bullet? In that anything less would not be noticeable to the naked eye let alone a camera.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lwiklendt:
Anyway, that said, I'm fairly convinced that it is the shake of the camera. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Your Welcome

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lwiklendt:
Towards the end of the film, you can clearly see when the camera starts and stops shaking, and that the squigles appear/disappear respectively. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Is what I'm saying

VMF223_Smitty
02-24-2005, 10:32 AM
Always obvious in these posts as to who has really witnessed actual tracer fire in an enviroment of any type - and who hasn't.

Equilizer
02-24-2005, 10:40 AM
Tracers are tracers, they do not differentiate between combat and non-combat.

VMF223_Smitty
02-24-2005, 10:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Equilizer:
Tracers are tracers, they do not differentiate between combat and non-combat. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


That is a profound statement

Equilizer
02-24-2005, 10:55 AM
You edited your post.

lwiklendt
02-25-2005, 03:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lwiklendt:
First of all, friction acts on the bullet as soon as it leaves the barrel. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>First of all I never said it didn't act on the bullet. I simply asked *what* force would cause the RIGHT/DOWN and LEFT/UP squiggle effect. _Oh, by the way you forgot to mention that gravity is acting on the bullet._ Typically the introduction to physics people don't miss that? Did you ditch a lot of classes? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Um, maybe you need to re-take those physics classes, because the earths gravity does not make bullets go "RIGHT/DOWN LEFT/UP", thats why i didn't included it. Maybe I should have also included the force exerted on the bullet due to its travel through the earths magnetic field? Did I also forget to mention the weak nuclear force on the bullet exerted by, well, everything else in the universe??

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lwiklendt:
A bullet with a greater coefficient of friction on one side, while spinning, will produce a sprial path. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! On one side huh? So you got a pretty banged up and or deformed bullet? In that anything less would not be noticeable to the naked eye let alone a camera.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> LOL! maybe you'd like me to draw you a picture. Even if the bullet is slightly deformed in the factory, to have a tendancy to turn in any one direction, perhaps because its point is a little off centre... whatever, then upon the correct spin it will create a spiral path. Pickup a physics book, and try to understand the equations, rather than just remembering them to pass your physics exams.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lwiklendt:
Towards the end of the film, you can clearly see when the camera starts and stops shaking, and that the squigles appear/disappear respectively. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Is what I'm saying <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No its not, your saying that it is impossible for a bullet to have a spiral path. You were not saying that they didn't by certain fighters in ww2. Maybe go to the library and pickup a book on logic aswell.

RoughRaider1
02-25-2005, 06:21 AM
All projectiles will have a degree of a spiral path. It has to do with the rotation of the Earth belive it or not. It also will spiral the opposite direction in the Southern hemisphere then it does in the Northern hemisphere.

LeadSpitter_
02-25-2005, 06:59 AM
Its something that bugged me since il2 sturmovik, overly bright lazer looking tracer color which is visable across these whole square maps.

they do look very lucas arts like and cheesy.

.303 and .50 cal are the same as flightsims of the early 80s like from these sims

aces over russia
aces over europe
aces over the pacific if anyone had these sims back then.

TAGERT.
02-25-2005, 09:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lwiklendt:
Um, maybe you need to re-take those physics classes, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
At least I took them once.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lwiklendt:
because the earths gravity does not make bullets go "RIGHT/DOWN LEFT/UP", thats why i didn't included it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
My point exactly. I didn't include any of the forces, because I was not trying to show there was a force to cause the squiggle. I simply hope that in asking, some might give it some though and realize there is no force that can cause the squiggle.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lwiklendt:
Maybe I should have also included the force exerted on the bullet due to its travel through the earths magnetic field? Did I also forget to mention the weak nuclear force on the bullet exerted by, well, everything else in the universe?? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You forgot one, the Coriulis force. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lwiklendt:
LOL! maybe you'd like me to draw you a picture. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sure, but be careful when you scan it in. Your crayons might mess up your dad's scanner and result in you getting a spanking.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lwiklendt:
Even if the bullet is slightly deformed in the factory, to have a tendency to turn in any one direction, perhaps because its point is a little off centre... whatever, then upon the correct spin it will create a spiral path. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ah, are we switching gears from squiggle to spiral path? Anyway, if you go back and read my previous posts you will see that I all ready accounted for strange trajectories due to deformation of the tracer as it burns. But we are talking about the squiggle effect.. You know that REALISTIC thing based off your extensive physics background.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lwiklendt:
Pickup a physics book, and try to understand the equations, rather than just remembering them to pass your physics exams. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
LOL! Said by the man who now says "i'm fairly convinced that it is the shake of the camera".. FAIRLY CONVINCED bassed off what he *saw* and his extensive physics background.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lwiklendt:
No its not, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes it is

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lwiklendt:
your saying that it is impossible for a bullet to have a spiral path. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Nope, sorry but your wrong again, I never said that. Go back and read my previous posts you will see that I all ready accounted for strange trajectories due to deformation of the tracer as it burns. But we are talking about the squiggle effect.. You know that REALISTIC thing based off your extensive physics background.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lwiklendt:
You were not saying that they didn't by certain fighters in ww2. Maybe go to the library and pickup a book on logic aswell. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Let me see if I understand you correctly.. Your saying that *I*, the guy whos original statement has not changed based off my physics background should go re-read a physics book, and *YOU*, the guy who has done a 180 (more like a 120 in that he is only FAIRLY CONVINCED) on his original statement based off his physics background does not need to go re-read a physics book?

Is that what you saying?

Seems to be odd logic?

Doesn't it?

Almost as odd as a bullet that squiggles with no force applied?

womenfly
02-25-2005, 01:21 PM
I really hate to enter this male territory-pissing contest but, ....

Tracers do have different flight dynamics then solid rounds due to their mass. Tracers become lighter as the Phosphorus material is consumed thus their flight path becomes unstable at a point.

I am not saying " squiggles, wiggles, spirals, spins, etc." or any form of them in an undisturbed ballistic flight path, they do travel very stable when the point of viewed is from the barrel. The tracers flight path will vary as it becomes lighter compared to the constant mass of the solid bullet. This you will see and needs to be considered in this discussion. How the tracer round acts at that point is affected by a number of variables in this flight and lighter mass.

There is a lot more happening in ballistic flight dynamics then what was discussed here, but some very good points have been addressed .....

..... enough said. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

gates123
02-25-2005, 01:43 PM
Have you guys seen the physics on the new LA-7 for the Russian Add-on?

http://s104589627.onlinehome.us/My%20Videos/UFO%20and%20Jet%20SSC.mpg

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

mortoma
02-25-2005, 02:07 PM
Don't really matter to me how many people come in here and say tracers don't do this and do that.
What I saw was a tracer go up and down or slightly spiral and it was as distinct as the nose on your face. All the scientific physics jazz in the world will not convince me that tracers always fly perfectly straight.
I have since talked to my brother who was with me and owned the rifle that fired those fishtailing tracers and he remembers it too and when I told him about all the junk heing posted in here he said the people in question were full of it. He also had the same thing happened when firing tracers in his Egyptian Rashid rifle, which fires the 7.62x39 pinko round. But he said when he tightened his barrel down to his stock better it quit doing it!!!! He was getting vibrations or oscillations in his barrel. He also thinks that the squiggly tracers sometimes seen in old guncam footage is the way it would look to the naked eye. He thinks the cameras might add to the effect but that sometimes tracers do fly in a "squiggly" manner, since he's seen it many times. He thinks it's sometimes due to an uneven coating of phosphorus on the tracers, plus barrel vibrations add to it sometimes too.
He was in the Marine Corps in 1969 and was going to Nam but got an honorable discharge due to a hernia they detected, before he was to ship out.
Both him and I have tons of experience with weapons and he's nothing less than an expert and owns over 200 small weapons of all types. He was also a gunsmith for a while in the late '70s.

TAGERT.
02-25-2005, 05:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
Don't really matter to me how many people come in here and say tracers don't do this and do that. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
As it Don't really matter to me how many people come in here and say Big Foot don't do this and do that.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
What I saw was a tracer go up and down or slightly spiral and it was as distinct as the nose on your face. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Which is very differnt than what you said in the past.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
All the scientific physics jazz in the world will not convince me that tracers always fly perfectly straight. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But what if Big Foot presented the scientific physics jazz on a UFO, bet you would belive it than.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
I have since talked to my brother who was with me and owned the rifle that fired those fishtailing tracers and he remembers it too and when I told him about all the junk heing posted in here he said the people in question were full of it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Is this your brother that was with you the day you saw Big Foot and the UFO?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
He also had the same thing happened when firing tracers in his Egyptian Rashid rifle, which fires the 7.62x39 pinko round. But he said when he tightened his barrel down to his stock better it quit doing it!!!! He was getting vibrations or oscillations in his barrel. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
He also thinks that the squiggly tracers sometimes seen in old guncam footage is the way it would look to the naked eye. He thinks the cameras migt add to the effect but that sometimes tracers do fly in a "squiggly" manner, since he's seen it many times. He thinks it's sometimes due to an uneven coating of phosphorus on the tracers, plus barrel vibrations add to it sometimes too. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>How very scientific jazz like of him.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
He was in the Marine Corps in 1969 and was going to Nam but got an honorable discharge due to a hernia they detected, before he was to ship out. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And the price of tea in china is what at this very moment?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
Both him and I have tons of experience with weapons and he's nothing less than an expert and owns over 200 small weapons of all types. He was also a gunsmith for a while in the late '70s. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yet you guys failed to bag the Big Foot?

heywooood
02-25-2005, 05:58 PM
Bigfoot drives a UFO?...

TAGERT.
02-25-2005, 06:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by heywooood:
Bigfoot drives a UFO?... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Is what he said!

mortoma
02-25-2005, 08:31 PM
You guys are total jerks, when I mentioned that UFO/Bigfoot stuff, I was only trying to say that my what I said about tracers had to be taken by faith, as my word. I was making an analogy to explain that I had no proof, and that my saying it was only anecdotal to you other people. Or are you too ******ed to understand that Tagert?? Judging by his writing style and spelling, I'd have to say that Tagert is limited in intellect severely. What I have seen is proof though to me and if you guys can't take my "anecdotal" word for it then tough luck. And it's also proves to me that that you guys don't know what you are talking about!!! And Tagert thinks that just because he has a little bit of military experience it makes him an expert on guns. But I know a lot of former and present military people and they don't know any more about guns than most civilians. Most of them think they know everything about guns too, just like Tagert. As far as Tagert saying I said something different this time about my tracers, no I did not. I always stated that the path of the tracers rounds I saw looked like a sinewave or maybe what you'd call undulating or fishtailing. But there also could have been a slight spiral to the path too. I never said there was no spiral at all, could have been. But for sure there was a distinct and wild undulation!!!

TAGERT.
02-25-2005, 08:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
You guys are total jerks, when I mentioned that UFO/Bigfoot stuff, I was only trying to say that my what I said about tracers had to be taken by faith, as my word. I was making an analogy to explain that I had no proof, and that my saying it was only anecdotal to you other people. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And just as valid

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
Or are you too ******ed to understand that Tagert?? Judging by his writing style and spelling, I'd have to say that Tagert is limited in intellect severely. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>mortoma.. Where you operating under the impression that I give a RATS A$$ what about someone who belives in big foot thinks about me?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
What I have seen is proof though to me and if you guys can't take my "anecdotal" word for it then tough luck. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Im sure physic majors all over the world are not going to get any sleep tonight know that.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
And it's also proves to me that that you guys don't know what you are talking about!!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>To you.. Just as this is all the proof you need to belive in big foot

http://cryptozoo.monstrous.com/pictures/patterson_bigfoot_monster_footage.jpg

Who needs that silly physics when we have clear signs like that for all to see.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
And Tagert thinks that just because he has a little bit of military experience it makes him an expert on guns. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Funny, never recalled calling myself and expert? But I can see how relitve to you, you might feel that way.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
But I know a lot of former and present military people and they don't know any more about guns than most civilians. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Like your brother that was in NAM?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
Most of them think they know everything about guns too, just like Tagert. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I *think* if you go back and check you will see I refered to physics more than my miltary experance. You know that silly physics stuff.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
As far as Tagert saying I said something different this time about my tracers, no I did not. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes you did

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
I always stated that the path of the tracers rounds I saw looked like a sinewave or maybe what you'd call undulating or fishtailing. But there also could have been a slight spiral to the path too. I never said there was no spiral at all, could have been. But for sure there was a distinct and wild undulation!!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And a fine job of back peddling it was!

lwiklendt
02-28-2005, 07:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
You forgot one, the Coriulis force. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No such thing. If an object is moving in a straight line with respect to an inertial observer, then an observer that is rotating such as on the surface of the earth, will observe the said object as accelerating. Such an observation is called the Coriolis "force", which doesn't fall into one of the know four forces in the universe. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I could only bother replying to that one, for the sake of any other readers who may be interested. No point in keeping the flame with your other rubbish.

VVanks
02-28-2005, 08:20 AM
Could we all just shut up and play more Pacific Fighters? Bullets going in a sin curve is rediculous.

TAGERT.
02-28-2005, 09:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lwiklendt:
No such thing. If an object is moving in a straight line with respect to an inertial observer, then an observer that is rotating such as on the surface of the earth, will observe the said object as accelerating. Such an observation is called the Coriolis "force", which doesn't fall into one of the know four forces in the universe. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Same is true of centripetal "force", not a "true" force of it's own.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lwiklendt:
I could only bother replying to that one, for the sake of any other readers who may be interested. No point in keeping the flame with your other rubbish. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! You say that as if your were contributing something in the first place!